Harris can also be critiqued from the direction of libertarian free will.
Half of the answer is to recognise that my unconscious mind is still mine—following its prompting is not being under the control of someone else. The other half us understanding that the conscious mind can still exert control.
The basic mechanism is that the unconscious mind proposes various ideas and actions , which the conscious mind decides between, and finally puts the chosen one into action.
(Since you only have one body, it is important to decide on a clear course of action, not half of one thing and half of another).
Sam Harris makes much of the fact that the conscious mind, the executive function, does not predetermine the suggestions, and concludes that in the absence of of predetermination, there is no conscious control at all. In contrast, I argue that the choice between impulses, the decision to act on one rather than another, the gatekeeping mechanism, is conscious control—and conscious control clearly exists in health adults.
If there is indeterminism the mechanism (and there doesn’t have to be) it provides the libertarian could-have-done-otherwise as well as conscious control.
but there’s obviously no way Sam would say something like “consciousness is causally disconnected from the rest of the universe, and can never influence future decision making processes in the brain.”
You mean, no way he would embrace metaphysical epiphenomenalism, because he is a physicalist?
Actually, it’s not clear that he is a physicalist. It’s possible to be a physical epiphenomenalist , regarding consciousness as a brain module with no downward casual affect, but it’s strange , because it implies something complex, but with no function evolved.
Retributive justice—as in really within jurisprudence or so—questions are essentialy when we discuss free will, and here’s where most people are stupidly confused while SH’s exposition and interpretation is spot on about it.
But it’s not clear:-
• Whether retributive punishment is a US or global phenomenon
• Whether it’s caused by fee will beliefs.
• Whether there is a radically, rather incrementally, different approach to punishment.
Is it a Uniquely US Phenomenon?
It might be the case that US style prisons are like that because of a desire to inflict suffering because of a belief in free will...but many other explanations are possible. Most of the issues explained by simply not funding prisons well. After all, being in the same environment as a bunch of criminals is pretty intrinsic, not some special punishment. If the state was spending money on torture equipment, then you’d have evidence that they were making a special effort to cause suffering, rather than just doing things on the cheap.
Prisons in poor countries are invariably awful: no special effort is required to induce suffering. The harshness of US prison system is not explained by poverty ,since the US is the world’s richest large country, but does not have to be explained by free will. One distinctive factor in the US is the democratisation of the criminal justice system. Public prosecutors are elected, and therefore need a high profile: committing to slamming people up for long periods is apparently more attention-grabbing than releasing the innocent
Is It Caused by Religion?
Harris, Sapolsky and their supporters seem to like the liberal Scandinavian approach. But Scandinavia is not particularly atheist. For instance,Norway had a state religion until 2012, and 70% of the population are Lutheran, a sect that upholds free will. So theism doesn’t simply predict a punitive criminal justice syste
Soviet Russia, by contrast, was officially atheist..and materialistic and deterministic … yet had a very harsh penal system. So atheism doesn’t simply predict a gentle criminal justice system.
As far as I can see, the main predictors of a humane penal.system are a combination of societal wealth and political liberalism. But philosophical beliefs in theism and atheism, free will or determinism, are not strongly correlated with wealth or liberalism.
Is There an Alternative?
If you feel that someone is a danger to the community, then putting them in jail has a justification different from punishing them for their sins. But you might want to punish them by jailing them if you believe in free will, as well...so you cant infer a fundamental philosophical difference from the fact that that some people are in jail. Even if you want to rehabilitate them you still have to make them turn up to therapy sessions when they don’t want
And punishment is behaviour shaping,therefore therapeutic, in some ways.
@Julius
Harris can also be critiqued from the direction of libertarian free will.
Half of the answer is to recognise that my unconscious mind is still mine—following its prompting is not being under the control of someone else. The other half us understanding that the conscious mind can still exert control.
The basic mechanism is that the unconscious mind proposes various ideas and actions , which the conscious mind decides between, and finally puts the chosen one into action. (Since you only have one body, it is important to decide on a clear course of action, not half of one thing and half of another).
Sam Harris makes much of the fact that the conscious mind, the executive function, does not predetermine the suggestions, and concludes that in the absence of of predetermination, there is no conscious control at all. In contrast, I argue that the choice between impulses, the decision to act on one rather than another, the gatekeeping mechanism, is conscious control—and conscious control clearly exists in health adults.
If there is indeterminism the mechanism (and there doesn’t have to be) it provides the libertarian could-have-done-otherwise as well as conscious control.
@Taylor G. Lunt
You mean, no way he would embrace metaphysical epiphenomenalism, because he is a physicalist?
Actually, it’s not clear that he is a physicalist. It’s possible to be a physical epiphenomenalist , regarding consciousness as a brain module with no downward casual affect, but it’s strange , because it implies something complex, but with no function evolved.
@FlorianH
But it’s not clear:-
• Whether retributive punishment is a US or global phenomenon
• Whether it’s caused by fee will beliefs.
• Whether there is a radically, rather incrementally, different approach to punishment.
Is it a Uniquely US Phenomenon?
It might be the case that US style prisons are like that because of a desire to inflict suffering because of a belief in free will...but many other explanations are possible. Most of the issues explained by simply not funding prisons well. After all, being in the same environment as a bunch of criminals is pretty intrinsic, not some special punishment. If the state was spending money on torture equipment, then you’d have evidence that they were making a special effort to cause suffering, rather than just doing things on the cheap.
Prisons in poor countries are invariably awful: no special effort is required to induce suffering. The harshness of US prison system is not explained by poverty ,since the US is the world’s richest large country, but does not have to be explained by free will. One distinctive factor in the US is the democratisation of the criminal justice system. Public prosecutors are elected, and therefore need a high profile: committing to slamming people up for long periods is apparently more attention-grabbing than releasing the innocent
Is It Caused by Religion?
Harris, Sapolsky and their supporters seem to like the liberal Scandinavian approach. But Scandinavia is not particularly atheist. For instance,Norway had a state religion until 2012, and 70% of the population are Lutheran, a sect that upholds free will. So theism doesn’t simply predict a punitive criminal justice syste
Soviet Russia, by contrast, was officially atheist..and materialistic and deterministic … yet had a very harsh penal system. So atheism doesn’t simply predict a gentle criminal justice system.
As far as I can see, the main predictors of a humane penal.system are a combination of societal wealth and political liberalism. But philosophical beliefs in theism and atheism, free will or determinism, are not strongly correlated with wealth or liberalism.
Is There an Alternative?
If you feel that someone is a danger to the community, then putting them in jail has a justification different from punishing them for their sins. But you might want to punish them by jailing them if you believe in free will, as well...so you cant infer a fundamental philosophical difference from the fact that that some people are in jail. Even if you want to rehabilitate them you still have to make them turn up to therapy sessions when they don’t want
And punishment is behaviour shaping,therefore therapeutic, in some ways.